2 3

Hitchens made such a good point when he talked about the immorality of vicarious redemption. How wrong it is to punish another person, an innocent person,to watch them suffer and die for your responsibilities. To accept this as the moral base, to honor the system that promotes this as the most important virtue is immorality itself. Scapegoating, an ancient middle eastern concept. The belief that placing the ills of the tribe on the back of a Goat and driving it into the Desert to die therefore removing the responsibility of the people. This is the base of the christian belief. Admiring the man willing to gut his kid because the boss wanted him to prove his loyalty. Commanded to love the boss more than you love your own children. One of the most morally void systems ever known. It is that simple.

JohnnyQB 7 Apr 27

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Morally - with reference to the principles of right and wrong behavior:

Your illogical observation may be because you do not understand simple "right and wrong".

What is considered Right and wrong is best viewed in light of a principle, rule or law, moral then is how well a person adheres to those imposed rights and wrongs.

Rules and laws can be arbitrary, a matter of opinion.

You are viewing the "rights and wrongs" of others compared to your opinionated arbitrary ideals of right and wrong. Whereas, to say that they are the "...most morally void systems ever ..." is incorrect. It is a system of rules such as the loyality rule of killing one's own son to show loyality within that system to that boss that has and enforces those rules.

Clashing of "rights and wrongs" very well happens when one person or system imposes it's "rights and wrongs" onto others for such as control, power and "authority" reasons.

Word Level 8 Apr 28, 2020

@JohnnyQB How does your reply have anything to do with the topic of discussion? Mentally ill, could one sign be that a person is ill-capable to stay on topic of a discussion? Would it be considered "right or wrong" to change the subject and attack a person rather than to address the information of the discussion?

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person" ), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. wikipedia

@JohnnyQB Or, are you just giving an example of how it is to be immoral by showing an example of a "wrong" thing to do by committing the sin of ad hominem fallacy?

@JohnnyQB Sin is a violation of Logic. Sin is to be immoral. Committing fallacy is a sin.


  1. an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law:
    "a sin in the eyes of God"
    immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, ... moreantonyms
    virtue, good

@JohnnyQB And, you wish I not post in your discussion, I have no problem with that.


They don't know any better. They're duped.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:490012
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.